Supreme Court of the United States of America declares, “Fuck the United States Constitution”.

In an act that can only be described as unconstitutional cowardice, the Supreme Court of the United States has once again displayed both a moral and ethical cowardice and a willingness to tell American’s “Fuck the United States Constitution”.

In refusing to hear “Peruta v. California” the Supreme Court of the United States has refused to honor and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America’s 2nd amendment.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

America’s Founding Father’s wanted the exact meaning of this amendment to be as crystal clear and utterly unambiguous as humanly possible. It was therefore written in the clearest most forceful and concise wording possible in the English language.

In the English language, the words are well defined and have very specific meanings. While it is possible to combine words into sentences which lead to indistinct ambiguity, it is also possible to combine them in ways that leave any possibility of ambiguity completely aside.

The phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is exactly one such combination of words which leads to zero ambiguity as to its meaning.

Let’s dissemble this phrase and discover its exact and precise meaning.

“The right of the People” is a phrase unique in the United States Constitution, the only other places it is used is when very specifically addressing the LEGAL Citizens of the United States of America. It does not refer to Legal Resident Aliens, nor does it refer to anyone else physically within the borders of the United States of America. It specifically refers exclusively to individuals legally in possession of US Citizenship. Furthermore, it gives reference to the United States Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

The Declaration of Independence’s “unalienable Rights” is the cornerstone upon which the entire United States Constitution rests. It sets the standard and defines the very nature of the United States Constitution and the Government that is both being created by the United State Constitution.

It sets the Federal Government of the United States of America apart from every other government in the history of the world because in that single two word phrase “unalienable Rights” it begins a process that had never been done before or since. Rather than telling the citizens of the United States what the authority their government would have over them was, it very specifically defined what authority the government did not and never would legally have over the citizens of the United States of America.

It very literally means, “These are rights possessed by the citizens of the United States prior to the creation of the United States, the US Constitution and any governmental body authorized by it for which either the United States Constitution nor any governmental body authorized by said Constitution have any authority to abridge, modify or eliminate”.

“to keep and bear Arms” To keep means to own and to bear means to have in ones physical possession, or to have on ones body. Arms refers to weapons that are employed in the defense of ones person, property, loved ones or nation.

“shall not be infringed” First let us deal with “Shall not” Shall not is one of the strongest imperatives in the English language, it literally means “Must not or cannot”. It is not a variable imperative with multiple meanings or shade of ambiguity. Its meaning is equal to NO, or NEVER in the strength of its statement.

“Be infringed” is a very old legal phrase going back to the very beginning of the concept of property rights. Its meaning is to break the plane of an individuals property line. To stick ones finger across the plane defining an individuals property line is to infringe upon their property. It does not mean to cross their property line ans walk up to their front door, it means the second you cross over their property line you have infringed upon their property rights.

To our brain dead and often treasonous Marxist Liberal Democrat neighbors it seems necessary to point out time and time again, the 2nd amendment is not and never was conceived of as a grant of privilege to engage in sporting events. It was created for two very specific purposes. First to ensure that in the event that the United States of America was ever physically invaded that the general population would be adequately armed to repel said invasion. Second, and very much equally in the minds of America’s Founding Father’s, that American Citizens would be appropriately and adequately armed so as to be able to resist attempts by their own government to exceed the limitations and authority granted it by the United States Constitution.

What is not found anywhere in the United States Constitution and most specifically not found in the 2nd amendment, is any wiggle room for infringing upon the unalienable Right for any American Citizen to own or carry a firearm. There is no clause allowing for reasonable restriction, for reasonable registration, or from baring any free American Citizen ownership or the right to have their firearm on their person.

In refusing to hear “Peruta v. California” the SCOTUS have given their tacit endorsement to California’s usurpation of the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution. This places the SCOTUS in the precarious position of directly violating the United States Constitution through cowardice and inaction. By refusing to hear this case, the SCOTUS has placed their own legitimacy to rule on issues of the United States Constitution in jeopardy.

The SCOTUS has in essence told the American people to go fuck themselves and to fuck the Constitution of the United States of America. Without the Constitution of the United States of America, SCOTUS has ZERO legitimacy.

EDIT: Just to clarify one minor point here, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas both strongly disagreed with the Courts decision not to hear this case.